The present appeal, filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal against Delhi Police, was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri Anjani Kumar, ACP. The Appellant was present in person.

Facts of the case:

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2012 with the CPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters, New Delhi seeking information against 26 points, including Is Delhi Police aware of so termed ‘Family Health Programme’ launched for commercial benefits by some individual firms like Indian Health Organisation (IHO), 64 Okhla Phase III, New Delhi 110020 collecting membership fees through telemarketing by misleading tactics as also referred in my enclosed submissions ‘Cheating in name of medical discounts? Also by misusing name of (the then) Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherji and Delhi Health Minister Professor Kiran Walia?; Is it mandatory for such promoters to take necessary permission from some approved authority for launch of any such ‘Family Health Programme’ on commercial basis? If yea, please provide details; Had IHO taken any such permission to launch so termed ‘Family Health Programmes’ for commercial benefits and so on.

3. The CPIO, South East District, to whom the above RTI application was transferred by the CPIO, PHQ, vide his letter dated 04.07.2012 provided the reply/information related to point 6 of the RTI application wherein he informed the Appellant that no cognizable offence was made out of his complaint in question and that therefore the complaint had been filed. As for the remaining points, the CPIO informed that the information sought in these points does not pertain to South East District.

4. Being aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 04.07.2012 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order 08.08.2012 directing the CPIO to provide fresh information in respect of point No. 6 & 26 of the RTI application to the Appellant. As for the remaining points, the Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s reply.

5. The CPIO accordingly vide his letter dated 22.08.2013 furnished fresh information to the Appellant in respect of point Nos. 6 & 26 of his RTI application.

6. The Appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission

7. During the hearing, the Appellant complains that he has not been given the requisite information by the Respondents. He also alleges that the firm (Indian Health Organisation), against which he had complained to the Police Commissioner through email, has cheated on several people, including his own brother, by displaying the undated messages of the then Finance Minister and the Delhi Health Minister on their portal. According to the Appellant, these messages have never been given by said dignitaries and this fact has been confirmed by the Ministry of Finance (by their letter dated 19.06.2012) in response to a separate RTI application of his. While explaining his brother’s case, he states that his brother, believing that said firm is a government sponsored firm, had also taken membership in said firm by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/. However, the moment he had filed the instant RTI application with the Delhi Police, the said firm had removed the messages from their portal and transferred the money deposited by his brother to his bank account without his consent.

8. Shri Anjani Kumar, ACP—representing the CPIO, when asked, does not explain as to why pointwise information has not been provided to the Appellant, and what action has been taken by the police against the said firm for such alleged illegal acts.

9. In view of the above, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO South East District and the CPIO, PHQ to appear before the Commission on 01.10.2013 at 02:45 p.m. with a report on the present matter, which should also include the information requested by the Appellant in his instant RTI application.